Sajadi wrote:Vivaldi is a non acceptable Chrome clone.
At least Vivaldi is providing an option to customize the interface via CSS code, whereas Mozilla plans to remove this. The extensions will also be largely the same when Firefox 57 hits. So what is the issue here?
Sajadi wrote:Take a look to the users of today. The biggest part are simple users. Simple users refuse to use anything which has bloat. Basically, what people understand under customization and features have changed.
The biggest part of the userbase of each and every browser was always
"simple users". According to a survey by Mozilla 40% of Firefox users are not even using an add-on. The users who only use an adblocker - and from this kind there are a lot - don't even count into that number. Firefox became successful because IE6/7/8 was goddamn awful, not because of the great extensions. Sure, there were power users who spread the word, but they hardly account for approx. 30% of all web users (which was the highest market share that Firefox held around 2009/10).
Sajadi wrote:Customization, like themes or UI customization is seen today as bloat, social networking, chat and else is seen today as features and customization. And as browser developer you can only be successful if you deliver to the mainstream users or in Mozilla's and Opera's case, both got greedy and removed therefor the power user features.
Again, the biggest part of the userbase of every browser there is were and are "simple users". Might not be true for Pale Moon, but you have to keep in mind that Pale Moon is fairly exotic. And seriously, I don't understand where you see the connection between a working Facebook/WhatsApp and interface customization. Those two are completely unrelated. Firefox (and to a lesser degree Opera) was a mainstream browser which was mostly used by simple users, period. IE provided a very bad overall user experience, hence why people left. Those people did not automatically become power users afterwards, you know... As for Opera: As mentioned before, the big changeover was necessary. No website admin cared for Presto with its 1%-2% market share. So they started to use Blink as their engine, which seems fair. The only thing you can blame them for is their failure to reinstate their former features, which is what Vivaldi is doing now.
Sajadi wrote:Bundling does help a bit, but Chrome is successful because it IS delivering all that what simple users want. And it's main advantage is that it is FAST! Simple users do not use Pale Moon or Firefox or Opera. They want no check-boxes, no features they neither understand or want. They want it simple and bare-bone and speedy like hell.
I agree with this. Speed and bundling it with other software (and heavy advertising of course) helped a lot. Android being the dominant mobile platform with Chrome as default browser helped as well.
Sajadi wrote:Mozilla and Opera could have had a good and long life with just delivering to power and advanced users, who want more than just plain and simple, stupid browsing. They just have decided to leave the niche sector and enter too the mainstream sector in the hope to be as successful as Chrome or beat them.
Again, Firefox (and Opera to some extent) was fairly mainstream to begin with and a great deal of the userbase were "simple users". Opera might have had more power users, maybe. But Firefox was always very very "mainstream". Moreover I disagree with you about a browser being able to live in a niche market forever. At least, if this browser uses a unique engine. You see, Pale Moon is using an engine very close to Gecko, and since Gecko still accounts for 15% of the overall web population it has to be taken into account when creating a website. Hence why you don't see a lot of breakage when using Pale Moon. Its engine is the only thing that allows Pale Moon to survive. Presto just accounted for 1%-2% of the overall web population and was therefore put to rest. Browsers like Vivaldi decided to use Blink in order to prevent a mostly broken web experience. You call that "Chrome clone", but what alternative did they really have? Once Gecko falls into oblivion you are going to see a lot of breakage when using Pale Moon as well, unless it has become very successful or has changed its engine until then. So the niche is only going to work when your engine is still mainstream.
Sajadi wrote:And here we have the problem which arises.. Why people should use Firefox or Opera with a new Chrome-styled concept when the real Chrome is available (or Chromium - if you want the Open Source factor)
I agree with this. Being exactly
like the competitor won't work out. However, you fail to understand that Opera had no other choice and Mozilla is increasingly having no other choice than to follow Chrome's footsteps. Presto was nearly irrelevant and was thus dropped, period. Gecko is becoming irrelevant due to Chrome slowly taking over the web as well (again, via bundling/speed advantages/advertising).
Sajadi wrote:Also, Vivaldi and Brave will only stay in the niche sector and only will have a very limited and small user base - because simple users are not going to use anything which has something bloated.
I doubt that they were ever planning to overtake the mainstream market. Their use cases are fairly special.
This is no magic. It is as simple as that. And for all of that you just have to look how the development sector and the priorities have changed.
The priorities haven't "changed" at all. Simple users always accounted for the majority of the userbase. IE was just awful(ly slow) and Firefox came in at the right time. Thus even the "simple users" had a reason to switch, end of story. However, Firefox is not really able to compete with Chrome speed-wise anymore, which is what they are trying to address with their switch to Servo and the concurrent dropping of classic add-ons. Speed is not my
main priority, but for most users it is.
Sajadi wrote:- "Rebase the browser with the latest Firefox code so it is able to work flawless with Netflix"
Well, Netflix is only supporting a very limited range of major browsers anyway. However, there really is a good chance that rebasing Pale Moon on a newer Gecko engine will help those incompatibilities. The breakage is likely to be caused by a too old Gecko engine. Furthermore Netflix is an important website and is only going to grow, so concerns regarding Pale Moon's compatibility do not really come out of the blue.
Honestly, I can't see how this is a concern of simple users only.
Sajadi wrote:- "DRM is a must have feature"
It is an official HTML5 standard and with the rise of streaming services usage of DRM is only going to increase on the website admins' part. Again, can't see why this should be a concern of simple users only.
Sajadi wrote:-"Whatsapp is not working"
Yeah, you know... WhatsApp is a major service today. Of course people expect it to work. Again, why do you attribute WhatsApp only to the needs of "simple users"? Everbody and their dog is using it today.
Sajadi wrote:- "the new tab page function is nothing i can understand and too complex, do it like Chrome or i have to leave"
This most likely was a "simple user", yes.
Sajadi wrote:- "Square tabs are outdated"
It's a matter of taste; that was most likely also a "simple user", yeah.
Sajadi wrote:- "Shrinking tabs are a must have, change it towards how Chrome works"
Also a "simple user" most likely, yep.
And so on and so on
That is what most people today want or demand.
Yeah, and? Apart from the last three points I can fully understand these demands.
Sajadi wrote:No mention of advanced features anymore. It's either simple and great or feature rich and therefor slow, buggy, too complex to understand and unwanted and outdated.
Sajadi, please understand that only a very small minority of the general user population of every browser there is has ever used "advanced features". Pale Moon is an exotic browser, we are not representative. Firefox was most likely never used in an "advanced way" by most either. So there never was a big "shift" ever. IE was awful, so Firefox took over. Firefox happened to provide some advanced features, yet most people never cared for, let alone used them. Then Chrome came around, delivering significant speed improvements, making the vast crowd of Firefox users switch. Where do you see a big "shift" or "change of pattern" here?
Sajadi wrote:Android and Windows are totally different. So bundling does not fully explain why Chrome is also utterly dominating on Windows systems.
Bundling was a big reason for Chrome's success. And being the dominant browser on Android definitely helped Chrome on the desktop. Denying this would be foolish at best.
Sajadi wrote:Because if we speak of bundling - theoretically IE/Edge should then be the most used browser on Windows.
IE has built up a certain reputation, you know. Those good old times during which nothing worked as it should... The IE name was burned to the ground by Microsoft. Edge was an improvement, but too little, too late. The difference between IE and Chrome users is that Chrome users are mostly satisfied.
Sajadi wrote:The reality is more that Chrome has built a reputation for most simple users. And those users of course advertise Chrome towards other simple users.
The userbase of all major browsers out there consists of "simple users", like it or not. That includes Firefox. Firefox was advertised in the same way Chrome is today and quickly gained ground because of IE being... IE. It's not like everyone was an expert back in the day - quite the contrary. People just waited for a badly needed replacement for IE and they got it, but did not care for advanced features mostly. You pretending that priorities have shifted is just wrong. Mozilla is killing off the add-ons, true, but this is because most of their users are what you would call "simple users" who care more for speed than for features. The change was necessary from Mozilla's perspective, at the very least for technical reasons.
Sajadi wrote:No matter if that kind of users are using Android or not.
Yeah, what else would they use? iOS users mostly use Safari. And again, being the default browser on Android helped Chrome a lot, and be it only for brand recognition.